Supreme court: Right To Property Under Article 300A Available To A Person Who Isn't A Citizen Of India

 We say so because Article 300-A of the Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The word "law" is with reference to an Act of Parliament or of a State Legislature, a Rule or a statutory order having the force of law. Although, to hold property is not a fundamental right, yet it is a constitutional right. The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property. {Para 18}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2878 of 2024.

Decided On: 22.02.2024

Lucknow Nagar Nigam and Ors. Vs. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0128/2024.

Print Page

Whether information under Right to information Act can be disclosed to foreign citizen?

 Public authorities as defined in the RTI Act, in India, deal with citizens and non-citizens. While as a general proposition, it would be correct to hold that the right to information is conferred upon all citizens, it cannot also be held that there is an absolute prohibition on disclosure of information to non-citizens. In the case of such public authorities dealing with issues concerning non-citizens, if there is an inaction or lack of transparency in their dealings, it cannot be held that such a non-citizen would be disabled from seeking the said information under the RTI Act. It would be left to the discretion of the authority concerned to decide depending upon the facts, situation and the surrounding circumstances as to whether the information deserves to be disclosed or not. Creating an absolute bar would be contrary to the purpose and object of the RTI Act itself, and such an absolute bar cannot be read into the RTI Act. {Para 49}

50. Restricting the Right to Information to only citizens in the light of both terms i.e., citizens and persons being used in the RTI Act without any discernible distinction would be contrary to sprit of the Constitution as well as to the RTI Act. The view of the Parliamentary Committee which discussed the Bill and favored retention of the right only to citizens appears to have been based on a misconception that Fundamental Rights under the Constitution are only available to citizens, which was a wrong premise. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Right to Information ought to be available to citizens and non-citizens depending upon the kind of information which is sought and the recognition of the rights guaranteed to such class of persons under the Constitution of India.

51. The safeguards/exceptions provided in the RTI Act, would apply qua any information which is sought, by either citizens or non-citizens in this context. Whenever information is sought by non-citizens, considering that the rights conferred under Section 3 is positively upon citizens, it would be on the discretion of the authorities to disclose such information or not.

52. Section 3 would therefore have to be read as positive recognition of the right in favor of citizens but not as a prohibition against non-citizens.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Prathiba M. Singh, J.)

A.S. Rawat Vs  Dawa Tashi 

W.P.(C) 2670/2017 and CM APPL. 11599/2017

Decided on March 13, 2023, 

Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1504

Print Page

Supreme Court: Right Not To Be Deported Is Ancillary To A Fundamental Right Available Only To Indian Citizens

 It is also true that the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all persons who may or may not be citizens. But the right not to be deported, is ancillary or concomitant to the right to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India guaranteed under Article 19(1)(e).

15. Therefore, it is not possible to grant the interim relief prayed for. However, it is made clear that the Rohingyas in Jammu, on whose behalf the present application is filed, shall not be deported unless the procedure  prescribed for such deportation is followed. Interlocutory Application is disposed of accordingly. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.38048 OF 2021

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.793 OF 2017

MOHAMMAD SALIMULLAH AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Dated: April 08, 2021

Print Page

Supreme Court: State can not take plea of adverse possession against its own citizen

We are surprised by the plea taken by the State before the

High Court, that since it has been in continuous possession

of the land for over 42 years, it would tantamount to

“adverse” possession. The State being a welfare State,

cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession,

which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or

even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over

12 years. The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title

over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession

to grab the property of its own citizens, as has been done in

the present case.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6061 OF 2020

Vidya Devi Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh 

INDU MALHOTRA, J.

Dated:January 08, 2020.

Print Page

Whether Indian citizen who has committed offence outside India can be tried by Indian courts?

Section 188 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-

(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India at which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Print Page

Whether inordinate delay in issue or renewal of passport amounts to violation of fundamental right?

 In this case, denial of a passport ‒ which is the effect of non-renewal
for such an extended period – clearly impinges on the fundamental rights of
the petitioner.
14. Although, Ms Gosain had earnestly contended that the respondent had
not refused renewal of passport as yet, the fact that the petitioner’s passport
has not been renewed in almost two years despite the petitioner’s
compliance with all the formalities, leaves no room for doubt that the
petitioner has been denied passport facilities. The fundamental rights of a
citizen cannot be held hostage to an inordinately long inquiry being

conducted by the respondent or its agencies.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 2091/2018 & C.M. Nos. 8677/2018 & 35544/2018

JASVINDER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
Dated:11.09.2018

Print Page

When state should take recourse to legal defences if claim of citizen is just?

This case reminds us of the apt observations made by former Chief Justice M.C. Chagla in Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. The Dominion of India MANU/MH/0008/1954 : AIR 1954 Bombay 50. That was also a case between the Railways and private party (citizen) wherein the learned Chief Justice, in his distinctive style of writing, commented upon the manner in which the Railway contested the case against the private party (citizen) by raising some technical pleas and observed as under:

Now, we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent judges, as an honest person.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8530 of 2009

Decided On: 08.12.2017

 Union of India (UOI) Vs. Susaka Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Print Page

Whether govt should take plea of limitation to defeat just claim of citizen?

The plea of limitation based on this Section is one which the court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. 

Supreme Court of India

Madras Port Trust vs Hymanshu International By Its ... on 3 January, 1979

Equivalent citations: AIR 1979 SC 1144, 1985 (5) ECR 2310 SC, 1979 (4) ELT 396 SC, (1979) 4 SCC 176, 1979 (11) UJ 157 SC

Bench: A Koshal, P Bhagwati

Print Page

Whether registration of marriage is permissible between Indian citizen and citizen of any other country?

It further appears from the impugned order that Opp. party no. 4 has refused to register the marriage between the Petitioners purportedly under Section 1(2) of the Act. A reading of the said provision clearly shows that it is provided therein that the Act extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to the Citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which the Act extends, who are in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. We find, nothing has been brought out to show that the provisions of the Act bars Registration of Marriage between an Indian Citizen and a Citizen of any other country. Section 15 of the Act also imposes no bar for marriage between a Citizen of India and a Citizen of any other country. We also find in the present case that the parties fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in Section 4 of the Act and did not suffer any disability as stated in Sections 4(b) and 4(d) of the Act.

Orissa High Court

Firoz Khan And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi), Represented ... on 31 October, 2006

Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 Ori 81, 103 (2007) CLT 168, I (2007) DMC 626

Bench: B Das, M Das

Print Page

Whether there is bar to Registration of marriage between Indian citizen and citizen of any other country?

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Section 1(2) of the Act of 1954 do not bar registration of marriage between Indian citizen and citizen of any other country. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of Firoz Khan & anr. vs. Union of India [AIR 2007 Orissa 81].

Having gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in which it has been categorically held that Sec. 1(2) of the Act of 1954 does not bar registration of marriage between an Indian citizen and a citizen of any other country and that Section 15 of the Act of 1954 also imposes no bar for registration of marriage between the citizen ... of India and citizen of any other country, in my considered view learned 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur has committed error in dismissing the petitioners' appeal on the ground that since the petitioner No.2 is not a citizen of India, the marriage solemnized between petitioner No. 1 and 2 cannot be registered under Section 15 of the Act of 1954. 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 November, 2014

      Citation;AIR 2015 MP 61

Print Page

Can a citizen take action against BMC for dirty water?

Backdrop: Very often we find a municipal corporation supplying water which is contaminated, and even mixed with sewage. Can a citizen take action against the municipality for negligence in supplying water which is potable and fit for human consumption? This interesting issue has been recently decided by the National Commission in a landmark judgment dated April 20, 2008 in the case of Consumer Education & Research Society (CERS) & Ors. v/s Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) & Ors. Case Study: Epidemics of waterborne diseases were a regular occurrence in Ahmedabad since 1978. When an epidemic of cholera and gastro-enteritis broke out it in 1988, CERS filed a consumer complaint which was dismissed for lack of evidence to substantiate that the epidemic was due to contaminated water. However, the Commission recorded the assurance given by the then Advocate General of Gujarat about the proposed steps to be taken to bring about the improvement of hygiene and sanitation in the municipal corporation and for elimination of chances of contamination of water supply. 

    In November 1993, a jaundice outbreak occurred in Ahmedabad which resulted in about 100 deaths and, according to official records, affected 

Print Page

Bombay highcourt; Right to good roads is a fundamental right of citizens

MUMBAI: In a landmark interim order, the Bombay high court on Wednesday held that right to good roads is a fundamental right of citizens under right to life and held that it was the state's statutory obligation to provide good roads.

A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and C V Bhadang directed the civic administrations in Mumbai, Thane and three other municipalities in Thane district, as well as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) and Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) to maintain all roads under their control and keep them pothole-free.

Print Page